To whom has the torch been passed--all that he accomplished in his lifetime is a legacy few will be capable or willing to try.  He had nothing to lose:  not money, nor position, nor worldly recognition, but just the fight for those less fortunate.  Their father made his money during Prohibition running booze, but he, along with, and probably more influential their mother, Rose, instilled in the family that to whom much had been given, much more should be returned, and they lived constantly with that motto.

The rights of the oppressed wherever:  the disabled, blacks, women, and those denied the opportunities with which they had been so abundantly blessed, Ted sought to  restore to those less fortunate.  We will not soon see his likes again. 

Monte,

Far be it from me to discount your admiration for the Kennedys, and your nostalgia at the passing of what may be the last remnant of their political legacy - a remnant in which I suspect RFK, and certainly JFK, would take little pride.  But I must take issue with your history and encomiums.  JFK was a stalwart anti-communist, admirer of Whittaker Chambers and Eugene McCarthy.  He was a tax cutter and proud champion of the greatness and superiority of America.  He did not want to make civil rights an issue; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the legacy of LBJ, not the Kennedys. 

You state, "...were it not for the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, half our country would most likely be without basic civil rights."  Are you kidding? Please!  

I realize your panegyric is directed more to the Kennedy brothers as a group than to Ted Kennedy.  But given Ted Kennedy's longevity in politics and a much more substantial record than his brothers, he should not be viewed through the airbrushed mystique of his brothers' legacies. 

By your measure of greatness, Ted Kennedy was greater than Jesus.  Jesus did nothing to relieve systemic poverty; He did not improve the material well-being of even His closest followers; He did nothing to advance the causes of socioeconomic justice or basic civil rights in His day.  What He offered to the poor, He offered to the rich as well, suggesting many times that the poor were actually better positioned to experience and enter the Kingdom.  And what He offered did not come out of somebody else's paycheck.  It takes no courage, and reveals no honor or virtue, for a politician to take from the honestly earned wages of one man and give the money to others who have less.  What the politician can be certain of, however, is more votes from the beneficiaries of his "generosity".

Now I don't know much about Ted Kennedy's philanthropic practices.  But I do know that his "selfless" advocacy for special interest groups, including criminals, trial lawyers and unions didn't lead to a cross, and did nothing for the impoverished.  It led to lots of votes, power, and money that got him elected over and over again, resulting in more votes, power, and money.  And his actions on behalf of the so-called poor and oppressed never seemed to relieve or even ameliorate poverty or oppression. 

The more the government subsidizes something, the more we get of what it is subsidizing.  The more the government tried to make poverty livable, the more poverty we got.  And the more the government created special rules and advantages for the "oppressed", guess what?  We found out that more and more groups were oppressed.  Political activism on behalf of the poor and oppressed may feel good, but the practical results have been disastrous: out-of-wedlock births, fatherless homes, over 40 million abortions (now there's a legacy Kennedy can be proud of protecting), failed education systems, resentment and a sense of entitlement on the part of the beneficiaries.  The Kennedy "compassion" you laud has been accompanied by a breakdown of values such as industriousness, frugality, self-restraint, temperance, and fidelity in the very communities which have been primary recipients of that "compassion"

Poverty has basically stagnated since the War on Poverty was declared in the mid-1960's.  In the interim, thanks to the "compassion" of Ted Kennedy, et al, the government has taken nearly 12 trillion dollars from working Americans to distribute to the "poor and needy".  The displacement of work effort, on the part of the poor and unemployed, caused by welfare in various forms, has made minimum wage jobs zero-sum propositions and fueled massive illegal immigration.  But in America, jinned up class warfare, masquerading as compassion, guarantees voting blocks.

Kennedy's support for every nanny state law and regulation purporting to "make society safer and healthier" has imposed enormous costs on business and manufacturers - costs which are passed on to the poor and needy, making goods and services more inaccessible and costly.  He has supported higher gasoline taxes and "cap and trade" - programs which hit the poor the hardest.  

The Kennedy rhetoric is not matched by the Kennedy deeds, at least not when it comes to Ted Kennedy.  His record indicates that he has always been more interested in power and statist ideology than in actually improving the lot poor, at least when it comes to politics.  In his personal life he may have been a Mother Teresa, but I doubt it.  His "selfless" commitment to the poor and oppressed doesn't seem to have impoverished the Kennedy family.   Your brushing aside Ted Kennedy's execrable personal life is a bit like Mrs. Lincoln saying, after her husbands asassination, "Other than that, the play was wonderful." 

Joe Biden's tax returns, made public while he was running for vice-president revealed that he gave around $600 a year to charity on a nearly $300,000 a year income. As I recall, Obama was more generous. He gave somewhere around 2% of his income to charity. But these people, along with Kennedy, Jessie Jackson, and other career Robin Hoods in legislatures throughout the country, are apparently those to whom you believe Jesus would say, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these...Enter into the joy of thy Lord."  Please tell me you are joking!!!  

Like Nathan, I have no use whatsoever for Ted Kennedy's politics or his personal behavior, but there is no denying that he pursued a life of public service when he could have been a useless playboy.  (As a conservative Republican, I would have preferred him to go the playboy route, rather than being such a powerful advocate for his left-wing agenda.)  There is also no denying the power of the Kennedy legend, the myth of Camelot, and the glamour and mystique that has surrounded the Kennedy family, especially John, Bobby, and Ted. 

Unfortunately, they're not all gone.  There's another generation of them, some of whom are active in politics today.  Some of us think that Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger has probably been the main reason that Gov. Arnold turned into something completely unimaginable in 2003--a worse failure as Governor of California than that zero, that cipher, Gray Davis.

Monte - nice piece on the passing of Ted Kennedy and what appears to be the end of the Kennedy family political era.  Certainly, these brothers left their mark on the American political scene.  Unlike Nathan, who by virtue of the longevity of Teddy's service, views Teddy's record as the correspondingly longest stain on the underwear of American politics, I, like you, view Teddy's work as proof of his commitment to his country.  He was arguably the most flawed of the Kennedy men.  He certainly made the most visible gaffes, from his cheating scandal at Harvard, to Chappaquiddick, to his "why do I want to be President" answer.  He lived in the shadow of his brothers, JFK and RFK, and he would have been the first to agree with John Donne's accusation against Death, that "soonest our best men with thee do go."

Like all wealthy people, the Kennedy Clan is somewhat of a mystery to me.  I've never known why they called John "Jack" and Ed "Ted".  "Jack" is seemingly completely unrelated to the name John, outside of starting with the same letter, and "Ted" not only unnecessarily adds another letter to Ed, but is nearly phonetically indistinguishable from it. 

Nathan's fecal one-word review of Teddy's personal life may not have drawn protest from Teddy himself.  However, Teddy surely would have disagreed with Nathan's theory of a causal relationship between Civil Rights and single motherhood, abortion, and poor performance in public schools.  He also would have disagreed with Nathan's vicious review of the black community, in which Nathan accuses black people of lacking "values such as industriousness, frugality, self-restraint, temperance, and fidelity".  Nathan does, however, graciously absolve black people of fault for being lazy, spendthrifty, high, drunk, and promiscuous, and places blame squarely on Teddy Kennedy's political views. 

But all of that aside, Teddy Kennedy surely lived a life of service he didn't need to provide and voluntarily exposed himself to criticism from pundits, journalists, and newsmen.   A TV camera might add 20 pounds and enhance flaws, but the billion candle-power political spotlight in which Teddy chose to live shined on goiters and boils that were surely repulsive to Teddy himself when he looked in the mirror every morning.  He could have lived a party-boy private-citizen existence, with no shortage of money, charisma, and good looks, but he chose to serve his country.  He could have still lived a life of influence and celebrity, a la John-John, outside of politic's harsh glare.  He could have deferred, because his family had already given the lives of two sons. 

But he didn't.  And this is why I appreciate the lesson of your post.  Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.  Just because you expose yourself to criticism, doesn't mean you can't trod on.  Just because you've lived a life unworthy of admiration doesn't mean you won't still do things to earn it.  Teddy was a living, walking, breathing list of do's and don'ts, and he'll be remembered well, for both.

Thank you for asking Statefarmsteve.  No, I was not referring to Blacks when I referred to the toxic effects of government handouts in communities that become dependent on them.  The majority of those who depend on government assistance are not Black.  It is my opinion that  government handouts, particularly when considered a right, erode the character values I referred to in any population group.  It is true of all human beings, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity.  If wealthy white males were the primary recipients of wealth redistribution, it would have a toxic affect on their characters (assuming of course that using "wealthy white males" and "character" in the same sentence is not oxymoronic).

"Government handouts" is a euphemism meaning whatever the person decides to include.  I receive "government handouts" in the form of Social Secuity and Medicare; unemployed workers receive "government handouts" in the form of unemployment insurance; veterans receive "government handouts" in GI and VA medical benefits; disabled individuals receive "government handouts" under SSI; all the federal workers, including the president and congress receive "government handouts; not to forget the largesse offered to dozens of countries in the form of aid.

So, that's just a partial list of those who receive "government handouts."  Like many things, it's been paid for and necessary if you are the recipient; it is only everyone else who is "on the dole" and are undeserving.  Let's hope that you live long enough to enjoy some of those "government handouts" that appear so undeserving--when others receive them.

Nathan, after bemoaning the fact that with Ted Kennedy in the Senate, "government created special rules and advantages for the 'oppressed'" (and by this I understand you to mean Civil Rights legislation for black people and minorities) you stated that "Political activism on behalf of the poor and oppressed [emphasis added] may feel good, but the practical results have been disastrous: out-of-wedlock births, fatherless homes, over 40 million abortions (now there's a legacy Kennedy can be proud of protecting), failed education systems, resentment and a sense of entitlement on the part of the beneficiaries.  The Kennedy "compassion" you laud has been accompanied by a breakdown of values such as industriousness, frugality, self-restraint, temperance, and fidelity in the very communities which have been primary recipients of that 'compassion'."    The communities that have been historically oppressed were not the "wealthy white males" that you referred to in your follow up post, but rather specifically, the blacks and other minorities in America. 

You clearly were not only speaking of welfare recipients (I understand that more whites receive federal aid than blacks) but also specifically included the "oppressed" that benefit from special government rules and advantages when you stated that "they" lacked or lost industriousness, frugality, self-restraint, temperance, and fidelity.  Did you mean someone other than blacks and/or other minority groups when you referred to the "oppressed?"

Jaime, I also agree with you that the significance of Monte's writing here is less a paen to a politician, and more a lesson on the ability of a flawed human being to contribute some of the biggest victories for some of the smallest of our society. 

Although those that patrol the political far reaches of right field would disagree, government has some responsibilities to those it governs.  People in society need a safety net that can't be provided by Adventist Community Services, be it food, clothing, shelter, and/or healthcare.  The needs of the nation's poor are simply on a scale beyond what charity can provide.  To put it in a different light, Adventist Community Services can help an elderly person shovel their driveway after a snowstorm, but they can't maintain the Interstate Highway system.  The national problems of hunger and poverty and education and uninsured sick people can only be addressed on a national level by government. 

Teddy Kennedy understood this, and moreover, he worked hard to contribute to the solutions of our national problems.  If addressing those problems means higher taxes, then so be it - although many of us suspect that the money spent on Halliburton and Blackwater and fighting pre-emptive wars on terror in countries from whence none of the terrorists in 9/11 originated, had it been saved, might have gone a long ways to eliminating the need for tax hikes. 

Jaime,

Thank you for the perspective on God's infinite and unconditional love.  I 'm sorry to have missed it if that's what Monte was driving at.  Nor was my criticism in any way an attack on Monte's integrity and commitment, which I greatly admire.  I read his panegyric as being very political, assuming that he was praising Ted Kennedy for his political activity, and equating that political activity with the work of Christ.  Of course my comments were biased and politically charged.  Are you suggesting that Monte's piece was not? "We either believe God or do what we want." Huh? Now there's food for thought!

Statefarmsteve,

I hardly know what to say. First you accuse me of racist comments; then you deny having done so; then you ask me to prove I'm not racist.  Wow! you know, they have pills for that.  I guess readers can spin my comments any way they want.  I don't really think of government dependency in terms of race or ethnicity, though obviously you do. Are you contending that government dependency is good for character development?  If so, make the argument, rather than insulting the person.

I still haven't heard anyone respond to my central point which was that Ted Kennedy exhibited a brand of "compassion" quite different from that of Christ. Ted Kennedy feeding the 5,000 would have entailed raids on surrounding farms and taking fish from the catches of local fishermen.  And I don't think there would have been any risk of the crowd abandoning him because he called them to deny themselves and take up their crosses.  Is that worth thinking seriously about? 

Nathan, I'll repeat.  I never said you were a racist.  And I'll add that I never asked you to prove that you weren't racist.

I have asked you to clarify your point of view in which you harshly criticize Civil Rights legislation, which gave oppressed blacks the right to sit at the same lunch counter as whites, which protected an oppressed Rosa Parks from arrest for refusing to surrender her seat to a white male, which required oppressed  blacks to be admitted to white schools.  You went even further, stating that instead of helping the oppressed, this legislation caused the oppressed to become lazy promiscuous drunks.  You're under no obligation to respond to my questions regarding your stated point of view.  I believe you lawyers call that "pleading the 5th" where you refuse to answer when someone asks you a question you don't want to answer. 

Regarding depending on the government, I'll be the first to express regret that America was the kind of country that depended on federal intervention to integrate schools, bestow the right to vote, and prosecute violent crimes against politically and socially activist black Americans. 

As for the feeding of the 5000, if I recall, Jesus did ask a young citizen to surrender his lunch in order to complete the task at hand.  Why would he do such a thing?  Shouldn't he have allowed the boy to keep his lunch, since he earned it?  Shouldn't the boy have refused to give Jesus his lunch basket on the principal of anti-Socialism?  It wasn't his fault that the other people were too lazy to carry their own lunch, that they lacked the foresight to prepare properly, or that they didn't have the money to purchase their own food. 

Jesus took from someone who had, and re-distributed it to people who didn't have.  Even in light of the marvelous efficiency displayed by Jesus' miraculous multiplying of the loaves and fishes, this act more closely mirrors socialism than capitalism, no?

Statefarmsteve,

Please point out where I criticized Civil Rights legislation.  I laud the Civil Rights Act of 1964; I whole-heartedly agree with equality of opportunity, though I think the government generally oversteps its bounds when it regulates or legislates to produce equality of result based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or wealth, or any other criteria.  But that's just my opinion. 

I think I have used poor judgment in overemphasizing my conservative/libertarian views on this blog site, rather than staying on track with distinguishing Jesus' example and Christian virtue from what I see as the radically different agenda of politics, be they liberal or conservative.  I think reasonable minds can differ about the best form of government and government policy.  But I get my hackles up when Christians make these differences sin issues - when they attack fellow Christians for believing that earthly government is better when it is smaller, has less power, respects individual liberty and private property, and disperses power through checks and balances.  I am offended when Christians sully the banner of Christ by using it to advance political ends, which always necessitate a trade-off.  Generally speaking, the Government can give nothing to one person that it does not take from another.  If a boy (the weakest of the weak) voluntarily giving his lunch to be used by Christ is the best example you can give of Jesus political views, then I rest my case. 

The life of Jesus shames most of us, or it should.  It challenges us.  The lives of the Kennedys do not.  Most Americans, even knowing their stories would say, "Give me their money, their connections, their advantages, and I could serve the Country at least as well or better."  The Kennedys were born on third base, and their acolytes try to convince us that they just hit triples.  Why is Ted Kennedy a better example of Christ's mission than other Left wing politicians who claim to represent the poor and oppressed, but adopt lives of comfort, voting themselves fat salaries, with great perks; opting out of social security in favor of cushy taxpayer funded retirement plans; drafting "compassionate" health care plans from which they will be exempted? 

The New Testament calls on Christians to voluntarily choose the way of the cross in order to find fulfillment in life.  Christian joy is found in self-surrender and service, not in creating and enforcing rights and obligations on our fellow human beings through earthly governments.  Do we advance the Kingdom by arguing over whether Milton Friedman or John Kenneth Galbraith were right - whether we should follow Edmund Burke or Karl Marx?  Jesus was recklessly indifferent to the laws of supply and demand, as well as the socioeconomic oppression of His day, in order to free people from political power and keep the Kingdom in focus.  Most politicians are also recklessly indifferent to economic laws - in order to control people and create faith in earthly utopias.

Many in our Church, both conservative and progressive in their theology, would replace the traditional sources of Church authority (Ellen White, Scripture, and Church leadership) with the authority of political correctness, superimposing Sripture on the moral priorities of secular high priests who scorn religion in general, and Christianity in particular.  Institutional survival instincts will, I fear, lead the SDA Church to follow liberal Protestantism into the wilderness of political activism rather than surrender its power, and possibly its survival in present form, to a Christ who says "I, [and only I] am the way, the truth, and the life."

I don't mean to sound pious,  I am sure many, including Monte, are far closer to Christ's ideal than I.  But that reality does not mean that others, whose political efforts happen to advance their mission, are doing Christ's work.  "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the Kingdom."  Maybe it's my fault, but it seems to me that the divisiveness we exhibit when arguing these issues is exhibit number one for the case that we chould keep the Church out of politics and politics out of the Church.  (Please note that I did not say we should keep Christians out of politics or make politics exclude Christians.) 

Good Grief, Nathan.  No wonder you are quick to prescribe pills to me for percieved schizophrenia.  Your first paragraph exhibits not one, not two, but three distict personalities, a feat Sybil would envy.

First, you say you never criticized Civil Rights Legislation, although you previously railed against government helping the "oppressed."  Then you praise the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  And finally, you say you dislike government when "it regulates or legislates to produce equality of result based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or wealth, or any other criteria" - which is the essential content of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I've heard of people doing a 180 degree turn, and even some confused people doing a 360, but you're the first person I've ever seen do a 540 in one single paragraph.  If waffling in print were an X-games event, you'd undoubtedly garner gold. 

Nathan, I've really enjoyed this debate, though we'll never see eye to eye.  In spite of my biting writing style, I want to assure you that it is more linked to my bizarre sense of humor than any ideology.  I'm not insane enough to believe that I am better than anyone else because of my political stances.  I understand that differences are just that - differences - not a sliding scale measurement of the quality of a person.  I can see that you are a highly principled individual, committed to your beliefs, and completely rational and a good-hearted person.  If I came across as anything different than that, I apologize to you wholeheartedly. 

Nathan, a large part of what you cite as "history" is, in fact, interpretation. I am generally inclined to prefer private charity over government-enforced transfer payments, but since 1927 private charity has failed to meet the needs in America. If Americans are serious about switching from a welfare state to effective private efforts to combat poverty, then they need to vote with their checkbooks. Independent Sector has estimated that it would take a five-fold increase in donations (however much you donate) to nonprofits to remove the need for government funding.

From my reading of the New Testament and subsequent Christian history Jesus did a lot more than the Kennedys to provide for the poor and energize change for social justice. Do you seriously think that God in heaven believes that the poor should starve in order for the affluent to hold on to more of their hard-earned wages?

Elaine, you make an excellent point. The largest volume of government handouts (even before 2008) has gone to business corporations. Frankly the unnecessary Iraq war can be seen as a kind of government handout to the corporation that the VP who promoted it the most used to be president of, among others.

Your reference to Veterans benefits provides a good test of the social theory that Nathan has espoused. No group of individuals has received more in the way of government handouts than veterans, so are they the most socially degraded and dysfunctional population in America? The results are obvious and clearly disprove this theory.

As a physician's wife for nearly 60 years, and a 20-year Medicare recipient, this was news to me.  From Slate.com, by Darshak Sanghavi, a John Hopkins' pediatrician:

"To have any hope of meaningful national health reform, threfore, we must address the perverse financial incentives that created and continue to inflame this problem.

"The root of the shortage can be traced to 1985, when a Harvard economist (!) named William Hsiao developed a scale to measure the relative value of every single one of the thousand of services provided by doctors, a job later compared to measuring 'the exact amount of anger in the world.'  For example, Hsiao's team deemed that a hysterectomy requireds 3.8 times more mental effort and 4.4 times more technical skill than a psychotherapy session.  In 1992, Medicare formally adopted Hsiao's concept; private inurers followed suit.  Today this relative value-based system sets the prices--and therefore drives the priorities of American medicine.

"Here's how it works.  Doctors do a job--like placing a coronary artery stent, reading an EKG, or spending an hour examing and diagnosing a patient with a complex problem like insomnia--and earn something called 'relative value units.'  In 2009, according to Medicare the stent guy scores about 24 units for his relatively quick procedure, the EKG person gets 0.5 units for the 10 seconds his job requires, and the poor internist gets only 2.5 units for his hour of time.  Figuring a doctor's total take per task is straightforward:  Medicare adds up a doctor's total RVU, multiplies the total by a fixed amount (roughly $40 right now), and writes the check.

"It's clear that Medicare and all major insurers place far more relative value on fancy procedures like stents, EKGS, skin biopsies, CT scans, and bowel clean-outs than they do on actual face-to-face time with patients.  Procedures, they have decreed, require more mental effort and skill than seeing actual people.  The implications are obvious.  Just visit any hostpial:  the dermatology, radiology, and cardiology centers that depend on high-volume, relatively quick procedures have gleaming new facilities, while the primary care and psychiatry clinics languish, since they earn their keep from poorly compensated face-to-face time with patients.  And, obviously, specialists make more money than primary care doctors.  (Recently, only a single graduating internist out of a class of 50 residents at Massachusetts General Hospital planned to become a primary care doctor.)

"Fundamentally, the entire payment model of American health care drives medical centers, doctors, and hospital managers to push for more fancy procedures at the expense of primary care doctors....Since 1992, Medicare has depended almost entirel on the American Medical Association for guidance on how relative values should be set.  In a devastating critique published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, scholars from the Urban Institute and the University of California-San Francisco explained that Medicare uncriticaly accepted 95 percent of the AMA's recommendations, which are formulated by the group's Relative Value Scale.

"Of the committee's 29 memers, 23 are appointed from subspecialties like cardiology and dermatology.  Just three represent primary care, even though half of all Medicare dollars are spent on face-to-face encounters.  Their meetings are closed to uninvited observers.  Unsurprisingly, over time, the relative values of various procedures far outpaced face-to-face 'evaluation and management.'  In 2000, for example, the RUC recommended relative value increases in 469 specialty procedure codes but made no change in codes related to evaluation and management--which are used by primary care doctors for outpatient visits for physicals, back pain, headaches, and so on."

There is, already, a drastic shortage of primary care physicians.  Is it any wonder why.  And should we not be concerned of how the relative value priorities are so heavily skewed toward procedures, and so little to the valuable face-to-face encounter obtaining a history and physical of the patient.

Good point, Elaine. Almost everything I have read about health care reform has as one of its operating principles that we need to redress the balance and invest more in primary care (more reimbursement, more training of physicians, etc.) because it actually reduces the overall cost of the system and increases the quality of life. It appears, from the data, that it is essential that every person have a family doctor and sees them at least once a year. Why? This is how much of prevention occurs and early treatment of almost any condition reduces the overall cost of treatment as well as makes it better for the patient. The 47 million people with no health coverage run up the cost for everyone else in part because they do not have a family doctor. The hospitals beg the governments (Federal, state and county) for yearly handouts to cover the cost of expensive and sometimes inappropriate ER services, which is almost the only way this 47 million currently get any kind of health care.

Monte, I appreciate anyone who can find the good values, amidst an imperfect life.  I never heard you say that the Kennedy family/brothers were perfect.  In fact, you addressed their sins.  However, what I read here was a lifting up of the good that was accomplished.

I particularly enjoyed the anecdote of the California church real estate deal.  That is cool.  Who knows what our ministry will accomplish sometimes?

I do not understand the polemic nature of some of the commenters here.  Why can't we, like Jesus, take living examples that represent Kingdom values.

@gwalter
A not so perfect man with a Dad Attitude
http://bit.ly/gwalter

Thanks, Monte, for the opportunity to clarify.  First of all, I concede that much of what I say is an interpretation of history.  Isn't that true of your opinions as well? I suggest you read the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams for in-depth, expert analysis, from 2 brilliant Black economists, of the deleterious impact social welfare programs and race-based preferences have had on Black socioeconomic progress.  

You ask, "What would be the status of civil rights for ethnic minorities if the Kennedys and MLK, Jr. had never existed?" If by civil rights, you mean laws and regulations that discriminate in favor of racial and ethnic minorities based on status alone, I think it quite safe to say that Ted Kennedy was instrumental in advancing and perpetuating race-based preferences.  Martin Luther King, Jr., of course, dreamed of the day when men would be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.  Just which civil rights program did you have in mind that would meet that color-blind standard?

You argue that government aid is necessary because private charity cannot possibly fill the need.  Doesn't that all depend on how you define need?  It is axiomatic that if the government funds anything, it will increase demand for what is being funded, and funnel more and more people to that trough, thereby necessitating rationing and price controls (cf. Obamacare).  I don't believe God wants anyone to starve.  Do you think conservatives like me want people to starve? The reality is that, since JFK, every income tax cut has produced increased government revenue.  The best way to help the poor is with economic policies that encourage the creation and investment of wealth so that the poor can work and move up the economic ladder.  Did you ever have a poor person offer you a well-paying job, or any job at all for that matter?

One can reduce their risk of poverty to almost zero if they do three simple things: 1)Finish high school; 2)Wait until they get married to have children; 3)Once they have children, stay married.  I'll be glad to cite the references if you're interested.  I just don't have them at me fingertips now.  Now tell me, just what government program or civil rights program has addressed these problems. 

Everyone in America, including the overwhelming majority of the so-called poor, is relatively affluent by historical or global standards.   I, along with most political conservatives, support a government backed safety net for those unable to meet their needs due to circumstances beyond their control.  For most, this should be a temporary inability, with strong incentives placed to become independent and self-sufficient if possible.  Most poverty programs are not designed with these goals in mind, but rather are intended to advance collectivist, wealth-redistributive ideologies.  Therefore, the safety net is cast very wide ion order to pull in as many people as possible, and increase political power by creating permanent voting blocs.  Such ideologies lead people to throw around numbers like 47 million uninsured Americans without paying any attention to who is included in that number and why.  Such ideologies refuse to acknowledge how dynamic our economy is; how 50% of Americans who were in the bottom quintile 10 years ago are no longer in that bottom quintile.  Take a look at coyoteblog or carpe diem on the internet if you are interested in statistics and analysis that might make you question some of your assumptions about wealth and poverty in America.

The poor in America, as the government defines poverty, are in general not starving.  Obesity is the number one health problem among the poor.  Please explain to me how Jesus "provided for the poor" and "energized change for social justice".  Did poverty decrease in first and second century Palestine? What socioeconomic changes of that time period would you attribute to Jesus ministry?  Perhaps you might reread John 6:22, et. seq., for a reminder of Jesus "passion" for alleviating material hunger and poverty.

Let me briefly respond to some of the comments about medical care.  First of all, of course we spend more on medical care than any other country.  We also spend more on automobiles, color television sets, over-the-counter pain meds, clergy, lawyers, etc.  We are the wealthiest.  We choose joint replacement surgeries and mitral valve replacement when we are nearing the end of life.  We choose proton beam therapy for prostate cancer instead of cheaper surgical alternatives.  I could go on and on.  Would you like to take those things away, or would you like to vest responsibility for those decisions in Obamaczars?

Could health care costs and inefficiencies be reduced? Certainly. Provide for more competition and more choice.  If you adjust for longevity factors over which the medical care system has no control - primarily auto accident deaths and murders - Americans are number one in life expectancy, even if you include diseases of affluence, such as obesity, and other diseases associated with high immigration (diabetes, for example).  Cancer survival rates are much higher than in other countries.  We are also number one in satisfaction with medical service accessibility, as ranked by the U.N., hardly a fan of the U.S.  The only truly poor among the "uninsured" are illegal immigrants who can't get on medicaid, but nevertheless find their way to the finest hospitals in the country to have anchor babies and receive "emergency" care.  Most of the 47 million uninsured are uninsured by choice.  They are either young and prefer to take their chances, or they would rather spend limited resources on eating out, new car payments, or entertainment than on medical insurance.  The truly poor have medicaid or medicare.  Furthermore, even in countries with universal health care, the poor obtain the least medical care.  Why? Because they are less likely to take proactive health measures, waiting until health care becomes an emergency. The notion that the presently uninsured in America would get annual check-ups with universal medical coverage is risible.  Most of the insured don't get annual check-ups.

Again, the fact that the Left uses statistics misleadingly to trash America's medical care system is simply more evidence that ideological agendas rather than compassion are the driving force behind much of their "social activism". The ideological agenda is to take away freedom and choice for all Americans so that the individual will be legally subservient to the greater good of society. Contrary to the observations of Abraham Lincoln, they think to improve the lot of the poor by pulling the wealthy down to the lower rungs of the ladder. President Obama said it best during his campaign, when he promised to raise capital gains taxes.  When a reporter pointed out to him that when Bush lowered capital gains taxes, revenue to the Government from those taxes actually increased, Obama responded, "It doesn't matter; it isn't fair."  That really sums up the class warfare substance underlying Left wing economic policy - greed and envy.  Is that what you call the work and mind of Christ?  

Nathan, thanks for clarifying.  I'd like to discuss a few of the points you raised.  First, that affirmative action is somehow the wrong thing to do.  Second, that the poor in America aren't really poor.  And Third, that in spite of certain facts indicating otherwise, American Healthcare is the ideal model. 

Affirmative Action, while it unfortunately harms some, is a necessary "evil."  The success of the Civil Rights Movement with regards to Jim Crow laws did not end the 300 year-old blockades that existed from college admissions boards to the board rooms of corporate America.  Without Affirmative Action, nearly every college in America would look like Hillsdale or Bob Jones U.   Minorities had long been considered less than human by their white neighbors.  They had, well, a Chinaman's Chance of success in post-Jim Crow America, and Affirmative Action still plays a role in leveling the playing field. 

You also assert that the poor in America aren't really poor.  It appears from your post that you define poor as "starving" as your proof that American poor aren't really poor is "obesity."  First, having spend a significant part of my professional life working amongst the poor and impoverished, I can testify personally that the poor in America are actually poor.  Secondly, the assumption that Welfare is a way of life was debunked by the Clinton Administration's welfare reforms.  Welfare is, by federal mandate, temporary in nature, and receiving benefits requires compliance with requirements including a full-time equivalent work or educational component.  A Democratic President led the charge to limit Welfare benefits and force recipients to work - hardly the recipe for a widespread snare to ensure lifelong dependency and by extension, votes.  The urban myth of lifelong welfare voting blocs that you are referring to is simply untrue, and is propogated by right-wing pundits like Rush and Beck as part of their hate-mongering.  The reality is very, very different. 

Third, with regards to healthcare, you state that "The truly poor have medicaid or medicare."  One important point:  everyone in America over 65 and half gets medicare.  It's one of the reasons that medicare eats up so many tax dollars - it's just a big insurance pool consisting of the most expensive people to insure - old people.  Coincidentally, insurance companies don't want the expensive old people in their insurance pools, because they just cost too much.  They take too many pills, break too many hips, and nearly all end up in costly long-term care at some point.  Expand that federal insurance pool with younger, healthier clientele, and the cost per insured will drop dramatically. 

You also utilize many pro-American healthcare arguments set forth by right-wing pundits that just aren't based in fact.  For instance:

 "If you adjust for longevity factors over which the medical care system has no control - primarily auto accident deaths and murders - Americans are number one in life expectancy, even if you include diseases of affluence, such as obesity..."

First, this isn't true.  At all.  None of it is.  There is no study that exists that indicates that murder and car accidents stand between America's current expected life expectancy and Macau's current world leader status.  Conservative pundits like Mark Steyn have put the assumption out there, and it is now being parrotted as fact, when it is, in fact, not fact. 

And obesity is not necessarily a "disease of affluence," although it sounds good.  America is a very unique country, and here, it is easier and cheaper to eat junk food like little debbies and hot dogs than it is to eat actual garbage.  Ghetto spagetti is made with generic spagetti noodles (.30 cents) ketchup packets from mcdonalds (free) and bulk generic hot dogs (.50 cents/lb).  Fresh lean ground beef, tomatoes, real pasta, onions, garlic, peppers, etc can cost $25.  Which one is the "poor" american going to eat, and which one is going to lead to early death from cardiac disease? Bananas are around a dollar a pound.  Papaya might cost $2.99/lb.  Apples are $4 for a 5 lb bag.  Mangoes are $1 each on sale.  A box of Little Debbies is .50 cents at the outlet.  Which one will a poor person select?

There is no more a secret liberal agenda to force people into government dependency than there was a Bush conspiracy to blow up the twin towers.  I don't know how greed and envy fuel the left, any more than greed and evil fuel the right.  In any case, Bush is a Billionaire, son of a Billionaire, brother of a Billionaire, and he's spit out a couple of soon-to-be Billionaire daughters.  Obama's greed and envy has thus far not resulted in a checkbook register balance approaching a rounding error in the Bush checkbook.  Where is the greed there?

There are so many misrepresentations that is hard to address them all.

First, if the unemployed, who are now receiving government funds (both state and federal), could be provided actual working jobs, funded by that same government but producing goods or services needed, that could be a zero-sum advantage.

FDR in the 30s introduced the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) which put nearly 300,000 people to work building roads, state and national forests, and repairing and building the infrastructure.  The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, created in 1933 managed the Tennessee River and became perhaps the most important and successful federal project in history.  Today, it is still America's biggest public power company, bringing in $6.8 billion a year and supplying electricity to more than 8 million people in a seven-state region.

Why is it so acceptable for the government to give a handout to this country's largest financial institutions, all the while having such a low performance rate of reducing home mortgages for those with foreclosed homes following that handout.  Why is that not favoring financial institutions over humans, and why is it considered "welfare" to give money to individuals, but "corporate welfare" is for the good of us all.  Have we had our values skewed toward the "too big to fail" while the people are "too little and can fail on their own."

It is not true that the U.S. has the highest and best medical outcomes. E.G., Japan currently has a system that costs half as much and often achieves better medical outcomes than its American counterpart--even many U.S. citizens go there for their un-insured, or unaffordable and expensive surgical procedures.  Japanese physicians are just as good as any in the U.S.

The Japanese visit a doctor nearly 14 times a year, more than four times as often as Americans.  They can choose any primary care physician or specialist they want, and surveys show they are almost always seen on the day they want.  All that medical care helps keep the Japanese alive longer than any other people on Earth while fostering one of the world's lowest infant mortality rates.

Health care in Japan is universal and mandatoy, and consumes about 8 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, half as much as in the U.S.  And unlike the U.S., no one is denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, or goes bankrupt because a family member gets sick.

Although this is not sustainable, it is of interest that Japanese doctors make far less money than their U.S. counterparets, and aministrative costs are four times lower than they are in the U.S., in part  because insurance companies do not set rates for treatment or deny claims.  By law, they cannot make profits or advertise to attract low-risk, high-profit clients.

While it is certainly not admirable in all respects, still there are some differerences:  Japan's health-care system mixes socialism with individual responsibility and market forces.  The government pays one-quarter of the total health-care bill, and employers and workers pay the rest through mandatory insurance.  Workers at major corporations pay about 4 percent of their salary to a company-based insurance provider, limited to $6,000 a year, but the average salry worker pays $1,931.  Job-based insurance in the U.S. costs the typical employee $3,354 a year, according to the U.S. based National Coalition on Health Care. 

Their health-care system, though, does not deserve all the credit for the relatively robust health of the Japanese.  Diet and lifestyle are generally healthier they they are in the U.S.  There is less violent crime, fewer car accidents and much less obesity.  Only about 3% are obese, compared with more than 30 percent of Americans.  There is compulsory obesity screening for 70 percent of the population.  If people are found to be too fat around the waist, they are required to receive counseling on exercise and diet.

If the Japanese can do it why can't the Americans."

(Excerpted from a Washington Post Article by Blaine Harden, Sept. 7)

I appreciate the tone of your response Statefarmsteve.  Your arguments are substantive.  I can't argue with anecdotal evidence, and I certainly did not mean to suggest that the "poor" in America are just fine and dandy.  My point is simply this: The majority of the "poor" are adequately housed, clothed, and fed, and will not be among the "poor" in 10 years.  By the same token, most of the very wealthiest Americans in 1996 were no longer in that group by 2005.  See "Income Mobility in the United States: New Evidence from Income Tax Data," by Gerald Auten & Geoffrey Gee, both of whom are from the Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury Department.

We fundamentally disagree about certain values.  I strongly believe in free will, and hence, I come down on the side of personal responsibility and consequences for choices.  I also have what Thomas Sowell calls a "constrained view" of human nature; you have an "unconstrained view".  I suspect you see human nature as more of a blank slate, whereas I, like Sozhenitsyn, believe strongly in orginal sin. Different philosophies of government flow from different assumptions and presuppositions.  I just think it is dangerous and divisive to the church when those differences become the test of Christian virtue and righteousness. 

You seem to believe that the wealthy are responsible for poverty, and poverty can be eliminated by wealth transfers.  I disagree.  I think that if you take more from higher income earners, who employ office staff, take their cars to the car wash, and eat out, those people will look for ways to reduce staffing; they will wash their own cars, clean their own houses, and eat out less, all of which hurt the economy and increase unemployment.  The government can give nothing to anyone that it does not take from someone else.

I am puzzled and disappointed that you think affirmative action is necessary for American born Black people to succeed.  Affirmative action has not been necessary for immigrants from the Caribbean and Africa.  Nor has it been necessary for Asian-Americans.Those who can manipulate the government into giving them something they did not earn will never be motivated to earn what is given to them. This rule is as true for corporate America as it is for individuals.  It is as true for Whites as for Blacks. 

If you are interested in a comparative study of longevity and the variables beyond the control of the medical care system, take a look at "The Business of Health" by economists Ohsfeldt and Schneider, published in 2006.  I guess I'll have to take your word on Macau being the world leader in longevity.  Please tell me you're joking.  Are you attributing it to their medical care system?

Did I say there was a "secret" liberal agenda to force people into government dependency?  If not, why accuse me of it?  It's not a secret at all.  Nor is there any vast Left wing conspiracy, any more than there is a right wing conspiracy.  The Left clearly wants the Government to take over the economy and regulate what private property remains for the benefit of an unholy alliance of big business and big government.  Conservatives believe that strong government equals weak citizens. 

Fortunately, earthly governments, free or totalitarian, do not have the last word.  Christ came that we may have abundant life, regardless of political circumstances.  He trumped earthly powers with Heavenly power.  And because His power threatened the power base of earthly powers, He was nailed to a cross.  If our Christian witness is dependent upon, or conspires with, earthly powers to advance God's Kingdom, I think we should be very nervous about our source of power. 

Thanks, Nathan, likewise to you regarding tone. 

I read the Auten and Gee study regarding income mobility.  Their evidence regarding income mobility is indisputable, but few, if any conclusions regarding social mobility can be drawn.  First, no allowance was given in terms of age, or more significantly, career arc.  The study gave no weight to where the earners were in their careers.  If, in 1996, the bulk of the top earners were in the twilight of their careers (senior management, senior physicians, law partners, established business owners,) then when revisited in 10 years, now drawing retirement or social security, their income bracket would be significantly lower, making them "mobile."  Likewise, in 1996, a young college grad, junior partner, new physician, or new business owner would report in the lower end of the income spectrum, and be humming along in 10 years.  Also, changes in the stock market were unaccounted for.  The late 90's were the halcyon days of google, pets.com, yahoo, etc.  By 2005, they'd entered the wilderness.  In 1996, I was a new college grad, in law school.  By 2005, I was a business owner, with 5 employees.  I would show up in the study as mobile.  However, nothing really changed for me in that time.  My parents helped me through college.  They'd given me their old car.  I had Pell Grants that kept me housed and fed really well, and my folks helped me with tuition.  I am a classic case in the Auten study, but I am clearly not evidence of mobility in the social strata of America. 

I do not believe that wealth transfers are the key to eliminating poverty.  I do believe, however, that those people that you pay to wash your car, and bring you your food at Chili's, and clean your house should have the opportunity to work their way up life's ladder without worrying about getting sick and sliding down one of life's chutes.  Last night, I sat in Morton's with my wife.  Obama's speech came on the TV (we were sitting at a hightop in the bar) and we sat and discussed healthcare.  Grace, the waitress spends $556 per month on health insurance for her and her daughters, and was lamenting the cost.  She was serving me and my wife, and at the table next to us, two retired cardiologists (ironically, in a steakhouse...)  I think the dinner bill for the two tables probably equalled or surpassed her health insurance bill, a fact that was surely not lost on the waitress.  How is that not a problem?  Interesting fact - both cardiologists were Pro Obamacare. 

I am very much pro-affirmative action.  Immigrants who arrived voluntarily, or descendents of immigrants who arrived voluntarily, are in a very different boat than those whose parents or grandparents arrived via slave ships.  Unless you've spent time living and working in areas of the country that were truly steeped in the early american slave culture, it's hard to understand.  Texans and Californians really don't have the history of slavery, oppression, Jim Crow laws, and Civil Rights conflicts of Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, etc.  In modern day Florida and California, the closest thing you might experience is the population's general disdain for the Mexican migrant worker population. 

Macau is the world leader in longevity, according to the most recent CIA world fact book.  I find this extremely interesting, since it is essentially the Las Vegas of the Far East, and everywhere there you'll find drunk Asians gambling and chain smoking.  The developed world leader in longevity is still Japan, but that was less fun to mention than Macau.  The Ohsfeldt and Schneider book specifically mentions that taking murder/car accidents  into account still does not bring us up to par with other developed nations, although it brings us up somewhat.  Again, that "We're number 1 if you don't count murder and car accidents" argument is a myth propogated by the far right.  You are being lied to by Rush and Steyn and Beck, and because they lied to you, you're passing those untruths on and on and on.   At least you can help spread the word that this particular urban myth is urban bunk.  Now, if we can only get the word out about the lie that "Poor people are poor because they're too lazy to get rich."

Okay, you win.  I'll quit saying we're number one in longevity.  But longevity is a very poor metric for comparing the quality of medical care between countries. Pointing out the importance of variables unrelated to medical care will perhaps deter the Left from using raw longevity statistics to indict America's medical care system.

I have a question:  I read the other day an article that came out in the Baltimore Sun last January regarding comparative education costs.  The authors - 2 economists - observed that the U.S. spends 3% of its GDP on higher education, more than twice the sum spent by other developed nations.  They also reported that the cost of higher education has escalated faster than the cost of health care - 3.5% per year, adjusted for inflation vs. 2.5% for health care, as I recall.  Why isn't this area ripe for reform and regulation?  Could it be that the government has already taken over, and that higher education is a cauldron of Left wing indoctrination that advances statist ideologies?  If one looks at K-12 public education, it is obvious that inflation-adjusted costs have steeply risen, with test performance in spelling and math flatlining, even with dumbed-down performance standards.  Why do horrible cost-benefit graphs in a sector controlled by the government (education) prompt calls for increased spending, but when it comes to medical care, those same people cry that costs are out of control - even with a much more positive quality metric?  Actually, doesn't public vs private education provide a reasonable preview of what we can expect with government vs private health care? 

Much criticism can be levelled against our "health care".  Government and health care organizations have co-operated in creating a regulatory leviathon which insures monopolistic control of health care delivery by the government, hospitals and the AMA.  So all Americans, for the most part, have only one level of care - the best.  Allowing more schools to train more health care professionals, in far less than 7-12 years after college, to deliver basic health care services, would enormously reduce the cost of many health care services.  Admittedly,  It would also reduce the quality of care by an unknown factor.  Certainly a physician's assistant, with 2 years' training, is unlikely to pick up everything that a family practice physician will; a technician or P.A. will not provide as sophisticated a read of a fracture x-ray as a radiologist.  But that's a risk I should be able to take.  

Why should the government tell me that I can't have a choice to purchase insurance coverage that might only cover P.A. visits for basic care, or that will cover only hospitalized care - or "catastrophic" medical expenses?  Why doesn't the government let health insurance companies provide anything other than comprehensive coverage?  Imagine how much your auto insurance would cost if you had to buy coverage that included routine maintenance.  Anyone who has shopped for a price on auto body repair or windshield repair knows that insurance coverage will result in a much higher quote.  Left to choice, personal responsibility, and a competitive market, few Americans would opt for the costly redundancies and excesses presently built into the system, largely as a result of government policies and regulations, not to mention monopolistic insurance giants.   If some people want to buy the healthcare insurance equivalent of a BMW, fine.  But everyone should not be forced to buy a BMW in order to have personal transportation.  And it would be downright absurd for the government to complain, because it forced the auto industry to manufacture only BMWs, that cars are too expensive, so the government needs to intervene.  It's a sure bet, when the government takes over, that everyone will drive clunkers.

When has the government ever taken something over from the private sector and improved quality, reduced costs, or come close to meeting cost projections?  It just doesn't happen.   I'm all for health care reform, and I'm all for making sure that those who are truly unable to provide for their own medical care needs have access to care.  But increased government control will inevitably lower quality for everyone, reduce access and/or raise costs.

Statefarmsteve, was Grace starving; did her family lack clothing or shelter?  How many hours a week was she working?  What choices had she made, and what choices was she making?  No, I don't believe that inequalities in wealth presuppose injustice, or that they are a problem for government to fix.  Climbing the ladder of material well-being, if that is one's goal, isn't necessarily as easy for one person as another, especially if they are "stuck" on the bottom rung due to poor choices that have long term consequences.  Churches and NGOs are best positioned to determine how to support Grace and her children.  An illusory government funiculus will only perpetuate dependency.  What about Asian-Americans who work cleaning businesses and donut stores, insisting that their children study hard while others are playing, so their children can go to Berkely and Stanford.  Is that a problem?  

As to affirmative action, have you heard of anyone whose parents, grandparents or great-grandparents  arrived by slave ship?  I know that racism has persisted long beyond slavery.  I remember being stunned as a teenager, visiting Florida from my home in Denver, to hear hate-filled, vile racial epithets gratuitously hurled at Blacks on the street who were doing nothing but laughing together and minding their own business.  I remember actually feeling nauseous because the people doing the taunting were the people I was there to visit, and as far as I knew, they were really nice, fun people.  Growing up in an Adventist bubble with no T.V., I was pretty naive about racial and political tensions in the 60's. 

But there was another reality of which I was unaware - a reality that economist Walter Williams points out.  Through courage, hard work and determination, Blacks were succeeding in overcoming the legacy of slavery and racism before political power and White guilt made success a birthright.  In 1940, Williams reports, the poverty rate among Blacks was 87%.  By 1960 it had fallen to 47%.  During that interval, in various skilled trades, incomes of Blacks relative to Whites more than doubled.  While Black poverty continued to decline between 1960 and 1980, a time period when Blacks gained considerable political power, it only fell by an additional 17%. So the notion that Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, or Affirmative Action were responsible for Black economic progress is not exactly an open and shut case. 

It is also worth noting that, in 1940, 86% of Black children were born inside marriage.  Prior to the War on Poverty and the beginning of the modern Welfare State in the mid-60's, illegitimacy was 26%.  Because poor Blacks tended to concentrate in urban ghettoes, they were primary targets of do-gooder activists who wished to expand the welfare state and race-based preferences.  That expansion has correlated with an increase in illegitimacy rate of 70%.  Let me ask you Statefarmsteve, how is that not a problem?  How do big government solutions like wealth transfers and affirmative action impact such a fundamental problem underlying poverty? 

I have never argued that poor people are poor because they are too lazy to get rich. History is filled with extraordinary people who have actually taken vows of poverty to draw closer to God and be of better service to Him.  There is no honor or virtue in being wealthy. There is no shame in being poor; there is only shame in choosing thoughts, habits, and values that produce and perpetuate poverty.  To the extent that families, communities, or government adopt responses that enable or excuse such habits, thoughts, and values, they will take root and proliferate, creating low expectations, poor self-esteem, and ever greater need for more subsidies.  This is not a matter of moral or Christian belief, any more than the law of gravity is a moral issue.  It is simply a  law of nature and economics.  Those who ignore it, or ask government to ignore it, in the name of compassion, exact a terrible price on society and on the character of the intended beneficiaries. 

Hi Nathan - I tried finding the Baltimore Sun article you referenced, but was unable to do so.  I would have like to have seen what the economists were able to deduce from their statistics before I responded, but even though I didn't see it, I'd like to go ahead and comment on what you reported them to have said.

First, American higher education is one of the great bragging points for our country.  Tens of thousands of foreign students arrive here every year with hopes of attending one of the many quality colleges and universities.  And, whatever the current cost is, a college degree delivers the highest return on investment you'll ever find.  And government can hardly be accused of "taking over" higher education, when such a healthy market exists for private universities across the nation.  Stanford and Harvard and Yale coexist, compete, and drive quality with UCLA and NYU.  Perhaps that is where a parallel might be drawn between healthcare and education - there is room in the market for both a public and private option. 

Certainly, your healthcare ideas are meritorious.  PA's and nurses should be able to deliver basic treatment and exams.  In particular, you are Johnny on the Spot when you say that there needs to be more choices in companies and coverage options.  It would be great if there were another insurance company to choose from that featured the following:  administrative costs  90% lower than average, a reasonably paid CEO, no fancy Madison Avenue marketing campaign, no corporate jets, no 5-star resort junkets for insurance agents, and was widely, widely available.  Wouldn't it?  Who could possibly create such a company?  Who would be so audacious as to suggest it? 

Please, please stop suggesting that the President has proposed any kind of a government takeover of healthcare or health insurance.  Adding a public insurance option is good for the American people, and is only bad for the ability of private companies to continue to run on fat margins. 

And if you really believe that a public option would be inefficient, or uncustomer-friendly, then you are free to stick with the CEOs that are featured on http://sickforprofit.com/ceos/.  United Health's CEO's 3 year compensation will hit almost $150mm by the end of this year.  He'll still be sitting on another $600mm in unexercised stock options, just as a nest egg.  Cigna's CEO's 5 year compensation total is a more modest $120 million.  These are the people that stand to lose if President Obama is successful in creating a public option, not you and me. 

You see, Nathan, in private-sector, publicly-traded business, there are two simple goals that take precedence over everything:   increase revenue, and reduce expenses.  How does this translate to the health insurance biz?  Increase premiums, and pay less in claims by limiting coverage and denying claims.  It's an unavoidable battle between what's good for the customers and what's good for the shareholders.  And by the looks of the CEO paychecks, the customer is clearly losing the battle, because the shareholders are certainly, certainly rewarding the CEO's. 

Still think a public option is a bad idea?  The fedi-medi's run a 4% administrative cost, and the CEO's earn around $400k per year.  There is zero motivation to do anything detrimental to insureds in order to increase shareholder value. 

The need to charge a lot and pay out less and less affects real people, like the waitress Grace that I mentioned.  If Grace could pay less for her health insurance, it would impact her life in a tremendously positive way.  She is neither starving nor homeless.  I recognize that you asked me some questions about how much she works, and how she conducts her life.  Her work schedule and her life choices are irrelevant with regards to whether or not it's right for her to be a single illness away from bankruptcy or losing her home.  She shouldn't have to hope for a Church to take her in or bail her out if she gets sick. 

I'm sorry that you had such a rude awakening to the realities of race relations in America when you were a boy.  May I ask, and I'm extremely hopeful that you'll answer - how did you respond?  Did you stand up for the black people that your "friends" were taunting?  Did you discuss the situation with them?  How did your friendship with that family pan out?  I'm assuming that your families were close, since you travelled cross country to see them.  Did you discuss the situation with your parents?  Did your parents, who were close friends with these kids' parents, realize that these children likely developed their racist attitudes under the tutelage of their parents who were your parents' good friends?  How did your parents feel about being good friends with racists?  How did you feel about being good friends with racists?  How do you think these people felt about Affirmative Action?

Economists like Walter Williams are gatherers and interpreters of economic and social data.  Their job entails gathering solid data and drawing less than solid conclusions.  For instance, you report that Walter Williams feels that Civil Rights, the War on Poverty, and Affirmative action were harmful to African Americans, although nearly every economist on the planet would disagree.  Also, more sociologists would relate the rise in African American illegitimate birth rates to the sexual revolution than Affirmative Action.  They would also be quick to point out that American White illegitimate births during the same time period increased more than 1500%, which would tend to dilute the validity of any assertion that Affirmative Action or charitable intervention had any causal relationship to the rise in the Black illegitimate birth rates. 

Sorry for the long response, but you gave me a lot of stuff to think about.  The last thing you put in your post was the following:

...there is only shame in choosing thoughts, habits, and values that produce and perpetuate poverty.  To the extent that families, communities, or government adopt responses that enable or excuse such habits, thoughts, and values, they will take root and proliferate, creating low expectations, poor self-esteem, and ever greater need for more subsidies...It is simply a  law of nature and economics.

First, I have never seen such a law of economics.  Secondly, I strongly disagree with the notion that any such law exists.  What I see is your desire to impute the status of fact to what is actually merely your perspective.  I don't mean to discredit your worldview, but I would encourage you to acknowledge and own the reality that your perspective is by its nature limited, colored by your life experience, and by no means shared by everyone else.  You may splash in your backyard pool and use a styrofoam ring as a floaty toy, but to a drowning person, it would be a lifesaver.  If you were drowning one day, you'd view that floaty toy differently, too. 

There, but for the grace of God, is a floaty toy.  May it always be a floaty toy to me, but may there be a lifesaver nearby should I ever need it. 

Hi Statefarmsteve - let me begin at the end.  I like your life saver analogy.  I believe in temporary emergency assistance to keep someone from "drowning".  Such assistance does not enable or excuse the behavior that gave rise to the necessity for rescue.  But if sufficient lifeguards were put in the water to prevent all drownings, it would encourage and enable people to exercise poor judgment and take inappropriate risks.  The realization that drowning is a real possibility motivates swimmers to learn to swim before they go into the ocean, and to stay close to shore, out of dangerous currents when they do.

When parents, community, or government protect people from their negative behavior consequences, the negative behavior is reinforced, and the objects of compassion are prevented from becoming mature, robust, self-reliant adults.  This isn't exactly rocket science; it's common sense.  When you keep feeding animals which, by their nature are self-sufficient, it changes their nature, and renders them unable to take responsibility for themselves.  Are people any different? 

I'm surprised you don't see this as a common sense rule of nature that applies to all of life - economics, families, and education. I remember my first year of law school at UCLA in 1970 when our criminal procedure professor was Michael Tigar.   He announced at the beginning of the first class period that no one was going to fail - and he was serious.  This announcement was immediately followed by an outburst of applause, and the thunderous sound of 75 textbooks slamming shut.  No one failed, and little was learned. 

You make an excellent point: My world view is limited; my beliefs are very much intertwined with my life experiences; and it would be fatuous for me to argue that my views are not aligned with my self-interest, even though I would like to think that I would have the same philosophy of life if I were poor. Isn't the same thing true of everyone?  That's why our nation's founders designed a republic that would not be run by philosopher-kings, moral narcissists, or elitists, but would encourage self-relaince and primarily serve to protect life and private property through limited powers spread among separate branches of government.  Unfortunately, many are eager to force us to turn our resources and lives over to politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, President Obama, and his 30-something unelected, unaccountable czars, aided and abetted by unelected, unaccountable social engineers posing as justices in the U.S. Federal Court system.

Your condescenision toward economists "like" Walter Williams is amusing.  "Almost every economist on the planet...?"  Come now.  And of course sociologists aren't at all political, right?  True, white illegitimacy has risen... to 30% - less than half the Black illegitimacy rate of 70%.  So how does the sexual revolution explain that discrepancy?  I haven't made a study of it, but I think there is a fair amount of data out there to make a compelling case for the proposition that the modern welfare state has contributed mightily to the breakdown of families - particularly among Blacks.  It would be interesting to look at illegitimacy rates in non-welfare state countries, assuming there are any.  Sweden, the mother of welfare states, has an illegitimacy rate of over 50%.   I think a case can be made for the propostition that Blacks have economically benefitted from the welfare state, though it is a weak case, in that it assumes the pre-1964 economic growth in the Black population would have stopped had it not been for the selfare state.  I've never heard an explanation for such a contention.

There's not nearly enough space to argue how wrong I think you are about higher education in this country.  It's quality is measurably deteriorating as its cost goes up, due to huge infusions of taxpayer money to subsidize students obtaining worthless degrees which reflect little more than anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Western culture indoctrination. There are no Federal universities, and the state universities only "compete" because of massive taxpayer funding.  In fact, the only way most private universities can even stay afloat is that universally available Federally guaranteed student loans make schools like USC an affordable option to UCLA - loans, by the way, on which there is a high default rate.

What Obama says, and what he does, are vastly different things. Obama's statement that Illegal immigrants and abortion are not covered under his plan is incredibly deceptive.  If the end game was not to include them, why would Democrats unanimously be voting against amendments offered to expressly exclude them?  If he thought he could sell nationalized health care, there would be no private option.  He has many times expressed his preference for nationalized health care. What has been proposed is a system with triggers that will eventually phase out private options and funnel everyone into the public option.  Why, for example, would employers pay for employee health coverage when the employee can get the same coverage free under the public option - especially when employees are being taxed anyway to pay for the public option?  Look at how few private schools there are compared to public schools, and imagine how many fewer there would be if the private schools had mandates and triggers requiring them to mimic the public schools.  

No, there is never room for both a truly private and public option, because given its monopolistic power, the government will regulate the private sector to death and/or, with taxpayer money, make the public option temporarily superior at a lower cost.  Then, when the private sector is killed off, everyone is at the mercy of the public option.  The only reason the U.S.P.S. survives is that it would be illegal for Fedex or U.P.S. to compete with it.  The U.S.P.S. runs huge deficits and could not survive without massive taxpayer life support.  Much of the current cost of health care is due to the fact that the government already runs it in the form of regulations that prevent choice and competition.  Insurance company CEOs make big bucks because the government has conspired with them to create an impenetrable monopoly.  One of the reasons CEOs make obscene amounts of money is because the companies that hire them know that they know the right people in government.  Why do you think Tom Daschle makes millions of dollars a year? Well-connected CEOs can arrange for VIP mortgages for Chris Dodd and other politicians.  They can command the best lobbiests.  You don't need to do much research to see that the Obama administration has taken cronyism between big business and the government to a whole new level.  One wag astutely observed that Wall Street loves money; it hates free markets; the thing big business fears the most is capitalism.  You think the best option to the oligarchies that control private health care is the government; I believe the best option is freedom and choice.  The bigger the government, the smaller the sphere of freedom and private choice. 

I too have great difficulty understanding how someone like Franklin Raines (Obama's economic advisor during his campaign) can run a company into the ground, and then walk away with 10's of millions in bonuses.  We no longer have a capitalistic economy where there are free markets with consumer choice.  Government policy drives the economy and, in the case of home mortgage policy, has nearly destroyed the economy by hectoring, enabling, and encouraging the home mortgage industry to sell people homes they cannot afford, making a few Wall Streeters wealthy enough to be the number one contributors to Obama's campaign.  So you're not going to get me to defend the "private" sector as it is.  If United Health and Cigna really had to compete and provide choice, rather than simply lobby the Federal government to regulate in a way that protects their advantages, their CEO compensation would take care of itself.

There's nothing wrong with running companies to increase revenues and decrease expenses. In a truly competitive environment, the only way to increase revenues while decreasing expenses is to improve quality and customer satisfaction.  By its very nature, the government is incapable of meeting these objectives.  What do you think would happen if the government had to compete with private schools on an even footing?  The government spends twice as much per pupil with abysmally poor results.  They pay their teachers and administrators much higher salaries with fat pensions and benefits.  Why? Because they have a monopoly on K-12 education.  As control and responsibility for public education has shifted from the local community, to the state, to the federal government, cost has gone up and quality has plummeted.  

If your primary objective is equality, and I suspect it is, the public option is your best choice.  I suspect you do not want a private option, and, if the only proposal on the table was nationalized health care, you would be a big fan, especially since you blame private enterprise and competition for the flaws in our present system.  Virtually everyone who supports Obamacare knows that it is just an illusion - a step toward national health care that is packaged to appear as something else.  So anyone who is opposed to nationalization of our health care system would be a fool to support Obamacare simply because it purports to be something else. 

I think we've finally reached consensus, Statefarmsteve.  What do you think? 

Nathan, we are getting pretty close to consensus. 

I'm glad my low regard for economists was plain.  First, the tools of their trade are statistics, and as we've all heard, there are lies, there are [darn] lies, and there are statistics.  Secondly, most economists are too socially retarded to make a decent dinner guest, yet they are supposed to take raw data and extrapolate conclusions about society in general?  Ha.  Sociologists are social scientists with social skills.  Economists are the kids who sat in the corner picking their scabs and their noses, and furtively eating the fruits of their labors. 

I'm just not sure I understand the general critique you've put forth on K-12 education, higher education, private insurance, a public option, government intervention, government control, or anything that you mentioned.  The only thing that I kind of understood was that you don't like public education or the current private health insurance system, but you don't think the public option can or will work. 

I do think there should be a public or not for profit option, and for-profit insurers should remain and compete.  An interesting parallel is non-profit health care systems vs. for-profit healthcare systems.  The competition is clearly a present reality.  They'll just have to learn to run leaner. 

A more accurate parallel would be comparing State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Allstate.  State Farm is a mutually owned (in other words, customer owned) company, and when a profit is realized after administrative expenses and claims, any remaining excess is returned to policyholders in the form of a dividend.  There is no need to cheat policyholders out of claims, because it's their money to begin with, and to end with.  Allstate is a publicly traded company, and when they make a profit, it is paid to shareholders and bonused to executives and management.  State Farm makes a conscious, concerted effort to be fiscally responsible with all money that passes through the company accounts, because it is all considered policyholder money.  Any money that comes into Allstate coffers is shareholder money, and claims are the single biggest inconvenience that eats into the reason for the company's existence - increasing shareholder value. 

State Farm has run in a way that has built it into the largest personal lines insurer in the nation.  They cover somewhere in the range of 4 out of every 10 cars on the road in America, and somewhere around 3 out of every 10 homes.  They consistently sit atop the Fortune 500 rankings.  Their executives are well compensated, but are among the lowest paid in the industry, despite the fact that their company revenues dwarf their competition.  They never have and never will be indicted in stock back-dating scandals, one of the most insiduous ways that companies cheat the public. 

Obama is suggesting a not-for-profit health insurance company, that with government seed money will have a shot at forcing competition in the manner of State Farm vs Allstate.  The likelihood is that United Health and Cigna and friends will end up still competing, but will end up playing second fiddle to the market leading not-for-profit.  If they want to remain, they'll definitely have to cut the fat, though. 

Why not Medicare for all.  Those of us over 65 have been enjoying this program for years.  I go to the doctor or hospital of my choice and my taxes pay all the bills.  I don't feel that the government is meddling in my life when it pays my doctor and hospital feels.  There are some things the government does that I don't like--most notably getting us into needless wars that cost many times what health care for all Americans would cost.  Investing in the health of our citizens will enhance the well-being and security of the nation.

 We know that Medicare has worked well for half a century for those of us over 65.  Why does it suddenly become "socialized medicine" when we extend it to younger Americans.

We recently bailed out the finance houses and banks to the tune of $700 billion.  A country that can afford such an outlay while paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can afford to do what every other advanced democray has done: underwrite quality health care for all its citizens.

As matters now stand,  the insurancer companies claim $450 billion a year of our health-care dollars.  They will fight hard to hold on to this bonanza.  This is a major reason Amerians pay more for health care per capita than any other people in the world.  The insurance executives didn't cry "socialism" when their buddies in banking and finance were bailed out.  But to them it is socialism if the government underwrites the cost of health care.

 The chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over health-care legislation, Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, and his political action committee have received nearly $4million from the health-care lobby since 2003.  The ranking Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, has received more than $2million. 

In December 2007, the 124,000-member American College of Physicians endorsed for the first time a single-payer national health insurance program.  And a March 2008 study by Indiana University--the largest survey ever of doctors' opinions on financing health-care reform--concluded thatn 59% of doctors support national health insurance.

Sorry Elaine - you may, like me be blessed with good health, and not need to to use your Medicare.  But the taxes paid for Medicare coverage do not begin to cover it's costs, and more than the taxes paid for social security cover the cost of that program. Medicare is in deep financial doo-doo, and cannot possibly be sustained at its present rate of growth without massive new taxation to our children and grandchildren.  

We couldn't and can't afford the pork-laden bailout and stimulus programs. Your statement that we could afford those programs is like a homebuyer saying he can afford a $500,000 mortgage on a $60,000 a year income after the bank approves his loan application - and immediately starting construction on a pool in the back yard.  As the money to pay for the programs is printed and borrowed (we haven't begun to feel the effects yet), it will cause enormous inflation. And as taxes and fees are increased on every American to service the indebtedness, resources will be diverted from creative wealth-producing investment opportunities to corruption-ridden bureaucracies like ACORN, which will protect and perpetuate political power. It's just a matter of time. But at least we'll all have equal poverty.  All Americans might enjoy, at least for a generation or two, the prosperity of France, whose per capita price parity GDP is below that of the poorest state in the U.S. - Mississippi.

The mortgage industry worked fine until everyone realized it was just a ponzi scheme.  Politicians cannot deliver on their promises - and they know it. They just hope that their "fixes" will narcotize the public into turning over control of the economy to a point of no return, when the bills for their "fixes" begin to mount, and the government can then impose rationing and price controls, as it does in every government-controlled health care system in the world.  There is no other way.  Then, your present medicare will feel like 1st class on British Airways. (Not that I would know)

Those who wish to gain better insight into "progressive" hatred for capitalism and free markets need to read "The Israel Test", by George Gilder.  The debt that the world (rich and poor alike) owes to free markets, private property rights, and the rule of law, is incalculable.  Without it, there would be no health care or health care dollars to fight over.  Wealth only becomes a zero-sum proposition when it is controlled by the government.   Anyone who thinks there is moral capital in declaring as a right for one person something which can only be obtained by forcibly taking it from another will think more deeply about the morality of his or her assumptions after reading this book.  This book speaks directly and forcefully to the Ted Kennedy "social justice" mindset.

George Gilder is an economist (and you already know how I feel about them in general) who was born amongst billionaires, raised amongst billionaires, and now espouses economic theory that best serves - surprise, surprise - billionaires.  Billionaires like Gilder and his friends and family are unsurprisingly proponents of the golden rule regarding economics - let the ones who hold the gold, make the rules.  And boy, does his family, the founders of Tiffany & Co., hold the gold.  His godfather was a Rockefeller, of the Standard Oil Monopoly billions. 

Why on God's green earth would anyone ever listen to what these people have to say about wealth or consider it "insightful", much less let their somewhat slanted view of wealth and intergenerational wealth retention affect the morality of their assumptions?

Your analogy of the homebuyer who bought more house than he could afford and built a pool would be more accurate if said homebuyer was fighting an expensive war across the world, funnelling billions to his friends at halliburton and blackwater, and then paying billions of dollars to his friend's former employers at Goldman Sachs.  When republicans and "fiscal conservatives" stop spending money on stuff like that, then I'll listen to their complaints about deficits and irresponsible spending policies.

I'm curious.  If we're painting with a broad brush, and your portrait of democrats is of an insiduous party wishing to "narcotize" the American public, and essentially turn the American Citizenry into a bunch of financial crack addicts who seek their next free fix while the country burns down around them, what is it exactly that these democrats stand to gain?  What would the motivation be for them to engineer the total destruction of the nation?  Wealth that they would then tax away from themselves?  Power over a nation in ashes?  Fame, or more likely, infamy for running America into the gutter?  Why would anyone do what you are saying the "progressives" are doing?

I understand why Republicans in Washington are working so hard to defend their wealth.  It's got to be fun to be rich.  I can't understand why Dems would want to ruin America, though.  If I can't understand the motivation behind what you are accusing them of, I'll have a hard time believing the accusation. 

This statement was made by a physician:  "American culture simply has never been based on caring about what happened to your neighbor."  (So much for being a "Christian nation.")

Unfortunately, the doctor's statement is true and is ultimately what this health care debate comes down to.  "I've got mine; the fact that you don't have  yours is not my problem" is the thinking.  ("Am I my brother's keeper.")

 There is a right and ethical way to do things in this world, and the ethical thing to do here in one of the richest countries in the world is to provide health care for all Americans, regardless of whether they can individually pay for it or not.

Yes, socialized medicine is one way to describe it, but what exactly is wrong with that.  Who do the opponents of a public health care option think make the medical decision about health care--the insurance companies do.  They are far more concerned about their profit margin than the government will ever be, if it is ultimately to make these same decisions.

And, at least, with universal coverage, we will all have the option of having someone make those decisions, whether the government or insurers, rather than just some of us.

 Who would you rather make your healthcare decisions:  an insurance company that must show the highest profit, or the government that has no such agenda--just as no profits must be shown in financing wars, building roads, and educating our children--although the long-term profits of the last two work to better all of us.

Great point, Statefarmsteve - why would anyone listen to those who have produced wealth, jobs, and run successful businesses about what produces prosperity? Doesn't make sense at all. (Do you know how many of Obama's appointees have actually run businesses or produced anything?)  And of course we all know that the poor in America are only poor because wealth is concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.  Wealth is only of benefit to the poor if it is redistributed to them by a benevolent government prying it from the hands of the greedy producers of wealth.

I'm not sure I can answer your question as to why the Democrats want to destroy our nation.  Why do trade unions and public employee associations adopt policies that are destructive to the businesses and governmental entities that employ them? The takeover of the Democrat party by the radical left is too recent for history to provide a clear understanding of all the reasons. You seem to operate on the assumption that an idea should be judged by the personal experiences and sentiments of its proponents rather than its merits. If so, we could spend days discussing the radical ideology and connections that should discredit any proposals or ideas by our current President.  The adoption of lunacy by powerful people doesn't make it respectable.  Why is the world full of politicians who drag their countries into poverty and dependency in exchange for personal power and prestige?  Why would Palestinians and the resource rich Arab countries surrounding Israel rather focus their energies on Israel's destruction than on emulating her and benefitting, like Palestinians living in Israel do, from connection with one of the wealthiest, most productive countries in the world.   But they do.  

Just where do you get the idea that Republicans and their constituents are wealthier than Democrats and their constituents?  I am by no means a defender of Republican pork-barrel politics. One would have to be pretty gullible to think that either party is not primarily interested in concentrating political power and getting re-elected.  No politicians in Washington  are more cozy with big business than the Democrats and Obama.  If conservatism were simply about protecting wealth, conservatives would constitute only a tiny fraction of the population (After all, 70% of income taxes are paid by only 10% of Americans.). People are conservative because they believe in the values that produce wealth; they want the opportunity to create wealth; and they want the freedom to choose how to live their lives and spend their earnings, considerably more of which is given to charity than is given by liberals. The common element in the world's dystopias has been  the promise of freedom, equality and security through centralized control of wealth and the means of production. 

Somehow, you want to justify a government takeover of health care by pointing out flaws in the system, many of which have been created by the government. That line of thinking would justify a government takeover of any area of human endeavor.  I fear your response would be - "yeah, so what's your point?"  And that's very scary!   

"The takeover of the Democrat party by the radical left is too recent for history to provide a clear understanding of all the reasons."
 
Not exactly.  The majority of the people voted for change.  Had they been satisfied with the party in power, that was not reflected in the polls.

 We do have history demonstrating that under FDR, a democratic president,  that people were put to work in the WPA and CCC producing and building roads, bridges and clearing the national forests.  The Tennessee Valley Authority is still the largest electrical producer in the nation, established during his presidency.  The Rural Electrification Act (REA) gave unemployed work and brought electricity to much of the Appalachian south. 

 Social Security was also established under his office and is there anyone today who believes it should be abolished, or that our working senior citizens should be "put out to pasture" when they retire.

It was under a Democratic president that Medicare began--one of the great achievements that no one today would like reversed. 

The government is NOT the ogre often represented.  It has the opportunity to do good, and at time to encroach on our rights.  It has the power to wage wars, and has done so, to the great increase in the U.S. deficit--and what has been accomplished after eight long years and counting.

What is desperately needed today are jobs for the growing numbers of unemployed.  Either the government must continue to offer unemployment, or create jobs that will both offer a "hand" but for honest work performed.  Just as in beginning any new business, capital is necessary first to "prime the pump."  With the government giving a "helping hand" to those who, through no fault of their own, are now without both a job and health insurance it would be a beginning.  Should we, as Christians, stand idly by and say "I've got mine; it's not my problem that you are needy."

There are many reasons that new start-up businesses are not occurring:  lack of capital (see the very low percentage of home foreclosures the major banks have re-worked, in spite of their huge influx of capital from the U.S. government); the high cost of offering health insurance for their employees (another boost could be through government-run health insurance); and after many lectures, people are now beginning to save unlike the past decade.

All of these things explain why there is now nearly 10% unemployment and no prospects of that reducing soon, but fear that it will increase.  Should the government sit idly by while its citizens are desperate for work, but they are only "taxpayers" when the same government demands wars be supported.  Something is wrong with this picture.

True Nathan - the wealth that the Rockefellers and Carnegies and Fricks and Gilders accumulated had nothing to do with the fact that they did it on the backs of child labor, horrendous working conditions, and monopolistic, hammer-fisted business and labor policies.  They killed and maimed so many of their employees that regular attempts were made on their lives by their employees.  Their oppressive business practices spawned labor unions - they were born out of necessity.  Why indeed would we ever ask these people how to create wealth?

You're absolutely insane if you think that Obama and the Dems are tied into big business to a greater degree than Bush and the Republican Party.  The notion is absolutely laughable.

I never said that Republicans and their constituents were wealthier than the Democrats.  I can clarify my understanding of them, though.  Republicans in Washington are the elitist, private school, silver spoon crowd, who have clung to power through the Karl Rove strategy of appealing to every poor, white, religious nut job that they could frighten into the voting booth.  So conservatism is about preserving wealth, but they have to trick a chunk of the population into voting along with them.  Hence, the pandering to what was formerly known as the Dixiecrats, poor southern whites who dislike immigrants and blacks, and the religious right.  I hate to break it down so bluntly, but Karl Rove wrote the book on it - I'm just repeating what he said. 

And I don't advocate a takeover by government of healthcare.  I don't want government to interfere at all with the access to your physician, the diagnosis that your physician makes, or the clinical treatment that he prescribes.  What I do want is government to fix the stupid way that we pay for our healthcare, the wasted healthcare dollars that are diverted away from treatment and spent on private jets, marble lobbies, and CEO salaries. 

You yourself work in a field that is largely government funded and entirely government regulated.  While your salary is paid by your clients, the system in which you work rides on the back of taxpayers.  The courthouse, the judge, the filing and records, the clerks, the janitors, everyone and everything is essentially a taxpayer funded endeavor.  Why is it okay in the legal field, but not in healthcare?  Or is the legal system the epitome of Socialism and Communism and sinister Orwellian evil?

It is oxymoronic that the potential of government's involvement in health care is considered "socialism" when there are probably hundreds of entities that are supported by the government without a whimper.

 " I don't want government to interfere at all with the access to your physician, the diagnosis that your physician makes, or the clinical treatment that he prescribes."

As it is currently for many, it is the healthcare insurance companies that come between patient and doctor; and the companies are established to make a profit, which they are most proficient at doing.  Are they better abe to make those decisions.  The largest government-sponsored health care program in the nation is Medicare, a 100 percent governement operation.  Except, the government subsidizes Medicare Advantage to run Medicare for some and subsidizes them for $111 billion yearly.  How does that make sense for the government to subsidize and compete with itself. 

The $111 billion, plus the $450 billion a year that our health insurance companies receive could go toward a single-payer system that would eliminate all the hundreds of different insurance forms now required, saving hospitals and physicians a great deal.  The private insurance companies are fighting this because they know they cannot compete with non-profit government insurance.

My interest in this blog stemmed from what I viewed as an ill-considered equation of the Kennedy agenda with the work of Christ.  I hoped to suggest some critical differences between the ministry of Christ and the "ministry" of the Kennedys, particularly Ted's.  I had also hoped that those of a "progressive" mindset might see that people of faith need not have the same political philosophy to be brothers and sisters in Christ.  Fortunately, I am able to attend a church where a political agenda is not needed to bring life and meaning to the Gospel.  In my view, that agenda is righteousness by works on steroids.  

There are many websites, both liberal and conservative, which I follow for excellent in-depth analysis and political commentary.  This site does not threaten to become one of them.  Nor should it try.  The extent to which the views of others are informed and guided by Scripture is not mine to judge.  Nor, I hope, would others judge the extent to which my political philosophy is informed by Scripture.  I do find it remarkable that those who seek tolerance from fundamentalist SDAs in the realm of religion, exhibit such religious intolerance of those who deviate from Leftist orthodoxy in the political realm.   I'm tired of one-way conversations.  But it has been interesting.  

Once again, it's tough to stifle a giggle.  Never once did Monte equate or even hint at an attempt to equate Teddy Kennedy with Jesus Christ.  Moreover, he took the time to mention the drinking, womanizing, Chappaquiddick, and other shortcomings - a list which only you seem to equate with Jesus, the son of God. 

In fact, it seems that you dropped the level of this "one way discussion" with when you sacrilegeously suggested to Monte that  "By your measure of greatness, Ted Kennedy was greater than Jesus."  This stunted conclusion was immediately followed by your declaration that Civil Rights and anti-poverty legilslation caused out of wedlock births, divorce, and abortion. 

I hope you are indeed signalling an end to your side of your one way conversation.

dvd - no need to be meek, I'll gladly answer your questions. 

You mentioned an alcoholic womanizer, who killed someone - were you talking about the Biblical King David, a man after God's own heart?  Or Paul, who murdered many, many Christians, and even post road-to-Damascus, agonized over his battles with "sins of the flesh"?

Here is a very brief quote from Ted -

I am an American and a Catholic; I love my country and treasure my faith. But I do not assume that my conception of patriotism or policy is invariably correct, or that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society. I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly on it? There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance....

See, Ted was a religious "nutjob".  Why don't you just take a little time to actually read up on the life and work of Ted Kennedy before come here "speaking ill of the dead?"  You'd find out that he was one of the great compromisers in the Senate, and that people on both sides of the isle mourned the loss of this great statesman and his ability and desire to bring Dems and Republicans together. 

PS, next time you have a conversation with God, you may want to criticize Him for using sinners like David, the alcoholic, murdering womanizer, and especially let God know how silly he is for putting him on a "pedastool(?)"  and calling him "a man after My own heart."

"They stood up for the weak, the poor, those unable to have a significant voice in how the money and power in this country is distributed."

 You have to be kidding, Monte.  Ted and Chappaquidick would have ended the career of any conservative but Ted got away with it. Aren't the records sealed about this death of a young woman, an only child? Whom did he pay off?

 He was great on sharing tax dollars with others; how much did he donate of his own money? He lived like a king. Power was what he enjoyed and to the last he was political - suggesting that the MA law be changed so that the governor could appoint an interim senator. Unless history lies he was instrumental in getting the law changed previously denying the governor appointive power since the then governor was a Republican. Little about him do I find to admire.

Truth Seeker